CASE Tujan v. Cada G.R. No.

210636
G.R. NO.
TITLE

PONENTE VELASCO, JR.,J. DATE July 28, 2014

DOCTRINE - A verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus involving custody of

minors shall be filed with the Family Court. The writ shall be
enforceable within its judicial region to which the Family Court
belongs. However, the petition may be filed with the regular court in
the absence of the presiding judge of the Family Court, provided,
however, that the regular court shall refer the case to the Family
Court as soon as its presiding judge returns to duty.

- Writ of habeas corpus plays a role somewhat comparable to a

summons, in ordinary civil actions, in that, by service of said writ, the
court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the respondent.

FACTS On March 24, 2011, respondent Raquel M. Cada-Deapera filed before the
RTC petition for writ of habeas corpus. In the said petition, respondent
demanded the immediate issuance of the special writ, directing petitioner
Ma. Hazelina Tujan-Militante to produce before the court respondent's
biological daughter, minor Criselda M. Cada and to return to her the
custody over the child.

March 25, 2011, the RTC-Caloocan issued a writ of habeas corpus.

Despite diligent efforts and several attempts, however, the Sheriff was
unsuccessful in personally serving petitioner copies of the habeas corpus
petition and of the writ. Instead the Sheriff left copies of the court processes
at petitioner’s Caloocan residence, as witnessed by respondent’s counsel
and barangay officials.

March 31, 2011, petitioner filed a Petition for Guardianship over the person
of Criselda. Respondent filed a Motion to dismiss the petition for
guardianship. June 3, 2011, respondent filed a criminal case for kidnapping
against petitioner. On July 12, 2011 the petition for guardianship was
dismissed.

Petitioner moved for the quashal of the writ and the dismissal of the
habeas corpus petition. The RTC denied petitioner’s motion. On appeal,
the CA dismissed petitioner’s petition
ISSUE/S Whether or not the RTC-CALOOCAN had jurisdiction over the habeas
corpus petition
 YES.

The RTC-Caloocan correctly took cognizance of the habeas corpus petition.

Subsequently, it acquired jurisdiction over petitioner when the latter was
served with a copy of the writ in Quezon City.

Petitioner relied on Section 3 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC and maintains that

the habeas corpus petition should have been filed before the family court
that has jurisdiction over her place of residence or that of the minor or
wherever the minor may be found. The Court noted that what respondent
filed was a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under
Section 20 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC and Rule 102 of the Rules of Court.

Considering that the writ is made enforceable within a judicial region,

petitions for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, whether they be filed
under Rule 102 of the Rules of Court or pursuant to Section 20 of A.M. No.
03-04-04-SC, may therefore be filed with any of the proper RTCs within the
RULING/S judicial region where enforcement thereof is sought.

In the case at bar, respondent filed the petition before the family
court of Caloocan City. Since Caloocan City and Quezon City both
belong to the same judicial region, the writ issued by the RTC-Caloocan
can still be implemented in Quezon City. Whether petitioner resides in the
former or the latter is immaterial.

Accordingly Anent petitioner’s insistence on the application of Section 3 of

A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, a plain reading of said provision reveals that
the provision invoked only applies to petitions for custody of minors, and
not to habeas corpus petitions.

Lastly, as regards petitioner’s assertion that the summons was

improperly served, suffice it to state that service of summons, to begin with,
is not required in a habeas corpus petition, be it under Rule 102 of the
Rules of Court or A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC.As held in Saulo v. Cruz, a writ of
habeas corpus plays a role somewhat comparable to a summons, in
ordinary civil actions, in that, by service of said writ, the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the respondent.